SONU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the concerned school on 26th July, 2006 on a temporary basis in place of one Rani Sharma, who was an approved Assistant Teacher. The petitioner served an initial probation period for two years and was allowed to continue teaching against the vacant post as an Assistant Teacher in Hindi in Language Group.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the third round of litigation which the petitioner has been compelled to file by reason of the total inaction on the part of the school as well as the District Inspector to decide on the petitioner's approval of appointment. Counsel relies on various documents to show that although the petitioner was appointed with a B.Com degree in 2006, the petitioner acquired several degrees in the relevant subject being Hindi soon thereafter including a post-graduate degree in 2010. The appointment letter of the petitioner is dated 13th September, 2008. Counsel submits that on the date when the petitioner's case was sent to the DI for approval, namely on 7th December, 2012, the petitioner had already acquired a post-graduate degree in Hindi. Counsel further states that the petitioner was appointed in place of Rani Sharma in the Language Group and that Rani Sharma on the date of her retirement on 1st June, 2010 was occupying a sanctioned post. A statement of existing unapproved teaching and non-teaching staff of the concerned school shows the petitioner having a double MA and B.Ed and further that the subject studied in the post-graduate course included Commerce and Hindi. The petitioner's case for approval of appointment was received by the DI on 26th March, 2013. Counsel places two orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 29th August, 2018 and 21st January, 2019 by which the DI was directed to grant hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order (the order dated 29th August, 2018). The DI passed an order pursuant to such direction on 19th December, 2018 which was challenged by the writ petitioner in the second round of litigation. By the said order, the decision of the DI was quashed and the DI was directed to revisit the issue after granting an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

(3.) The learned Judge also directed the DI to act in terms of a Memo No.1691-SE(S) dated 20th September, 2001 and pass a reasoned order. The DI was also directed to look into the reason of the different stand taken by the school authorities and come to a finding thereof.